D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[Iosue]

I mean, it was mentioned that 17 out of the 90 (ish) encounters are straight up combat as the inhabitants automatically attack. So, that's 20% right there. About a quarter (at least) of all reaction rolls will result in combat flat out, so, we're already just about 50% of all encounters being combat oriented. Hardly the even split, or even the split that says that combat is the least important pillar in the game. If combat was so unimportant, wouldn't less than 50% of encounters directly lead to combat? Seems a little strange to claim that the game isn't about combat when the most popular module of all time results in half of encounters being combat.

17 out of 96 is 17.7%, not quite 20%. And negative reaction rolls don't mean combat; they mean negative reactions which may include combat. They may just as likely mean the monsters want a bigger bribe or similar negative reaction. The only automatic attack on the reaction table is snake-eyes, which is on 2d6 is a 2.78 percent. So now we get to 20%. Everything else is dependent on the group. If they love combat, they're going to fight a lot. If they don't find combat especially interesting, it may only go up a little bit. And that's not even considering that while the above 20% accounts for monsters that auto-attack, there's also the possibility, through planning and scouting, of avoiding combat in those encounters on the players' side. The gray oozes, for example. They auto attack, but if the party spots them first, they can easily avoid them without giving battle. The gelatinous cube of course doesn't really attack as a much as sit there and blocks the PCs' way.

Seriously, B2 is all about what you bring to the table. That is its essential (often overlooked) genius. If you approach from the perspective of exploration and interaction, that's what it gives you. If you approach it from a "Kill all the goblins" perspective, it'll give you that, too. Heck, want to be evil and take over the Keep? That'll work. So saying that the most popular module of all time results in half of encounters being combat is essentially meaningless. It gives you as much combat as you want.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ok, since I've been taken to task for my "lack of knowledge", let me provide a bit of education. The idea that modules weren't official is bunk. Many of the AD&D rules that are later collected in books like Monster Manual II or Unearthed Arcana first appear in various modules. In fact, a large reason to buy modules back in the day was to gain those rules, rather than the adventure itself. Secondly, if you look at the module, it will say Official right on the cover.

As far as "prooving" my lack of knowledge, let's dig down a bit more shall we? A bit above, someone (I'm too lazy to look who) talks about bribing the ogre in KotB to "deal with the goblins". Now, there's a few ways to interpret dealing with the goblins, but, let's pick a couple shall we?:.

Yes, we shall. Seriously, you really need to stop digging the hole you're putting yourself in. Firstly, there really aren't rules in those modules. There only only stats for new monsters, spells, and magic items. Off the top of my head, I certainly can't think of any new rules that were in the module. UA was largely a collection of stuff from Dragon magazine, not modules. Just so you know. Since we're apparently talking about educating others.

so that's Example #1 of you not knowing what the heck you're talking about.

Example #2: earlier in the thread when you said the the way the stats were ordered was STR, DEX, CON, etc. That wasn't the case until what? 3e?

Example #3: your claim that most of the page count is devoted to combat rules. That's been debunked already.

Example #4: your really strange claim that the MM (MM2 and FF and original MM) somehow mean more combat rules. Again, there are no new rules there. And even if there were, I could point you to the FR sourcebook, the Greyhawk sourcebooks. UA. OA. Dungeon survival Guide. Wilderness survival Guide. Hmm....seems there are a lot more books around the game world than there are around monster stats or new rules for combat...

Here, go look at this before you try to continue with that horrible argument.


So I gotta ask? When did you even start playing D&D, and have you ever played any AD&D or B/X? Because it seems like you really don't have any idea how those games are actually structured and played.

 

[Sacrosanct]

17 out of 96 is 17.7%, not quite 20%. And negative reaction rolls don't mean combat; they mean negative reactions which may include combat. They may just as likely mean the monsters want a bigger bribe or similar negative reaction. The only automatic attack on the reaction table is snake-eyes, which is on 2d6 is a 2.78 percent. So now we get to 20%. Everything else is dependent on the group. If they love combat, they're going to fight a lot. If they don't find combat especially interesting, it may only go up a little bit. And that's not even considering that while the above 20% accounts for monsters that auto-attack, there's also the possibility, through planning and scouting, of avoiding combat in those encounters on the players' side. The gray oozes, for example. They auto attack, but if the party spots them first, they can easily avoid them without giving battle. The gelatinous cube of course doesn't really attack as a much as sit there and blocks the PCs' way.

Seriously, B2 is all about what you bring to the table. That is its essential (often overlooked) genius. If you approach from the perspective of exploration and interaction, that's what it gives you. If you approach it from a "Kill all the goblins" perspective, it'll give you that, too. Heck, want to be evil and take over the Keep? That'll work. So saying that the most popular module of all time results in half of encounters being combat is essentially meaningless. It gives you as much combat as you want.

B2 is an introductory module, so of course it's going to place a focus on learning the combat rules. But as I pointed out upthread already, it explicitly tells you to mold the area the way you want and to expand the area to include much more than just combat.

So I gotta think that anyone who still brings it up as an example of "almost all combat" hasn't read the actual module, let alone played it. I don't know how much clearer Gary could have gotten on the very first page of the module than what he did to encourage the other two pillars.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, you've made this personal, so, I'm done. This is just not worth it.

 

[pedro2112]

I started playing in the late 70s in the Northern Illinois, Southern Wisconsin (near TSR) area. Every single campaign, convention game, etc focused on combat. Yes, there was exploration and other things, but most of the time spent at gaming tables (including the ones DMed by Gary and other TSR employees) was on combat.

 

[Anth]

The pretty famous image from the 1e PHB, "A Paladin in Hell" says otherwise.

Heck, the mere existence of paladins says otherwise. The class is intended, very clearly, to be heroes. Heroing is their job and reason for being. That puts the entrance of "knights in shining armor saving princesses" at no later than 1977. So, there's a maximum of three years where the trope wasn't present.

I give you some credit for that.
But the paladin is a very special case.
When we played ADnD in the eighties we rolled characters with 4d6, drop lowest, in order.
To be a paladin in ADnD you had to roll STR12, INT9, WIS13, CON9, CHA17, and that didn't happen very often.
Characters like bard, monk, paladin, ranger was pretty rare in our game.

Of course you could use other methods to generate characters, like 5d6, drop two lowest. But then you would have left the gritty default world of ADnD, and entered a more heroic house ruled world.

 

[Hussar]

I give you some credit for that.
But the paladin is a very special case.
When we played ADnD in the eighties we rolled characters with 4d6, drop lowest, in order.
To be a paladin in ADnD you had to roll STR12, INT9, WIS13, CON9, CHA17, and that didn't happen very often.
Characters like bard, monk, paladin, ranger was pretty rare in our game.

Of course you could use other methods to generate characters, like 5d6, drop two lowest. But then you would have left the gritty default world of ADnD, and entered a more heroic house ruled world.

Or, you could use the default method in Unearthed Arcana which largely guaranteed you to get whatever you wanted.

Let's not forget that Dragonlance was a 1e game world. As was Forgotten Realms. How gritty was AD&D by default?

 

[Anth]

Or, you could use the default method in Unearthed Arcana which largely guaranteed you to get whatever you wanted.

Let's not forget that Dragonlance was a 1e game world. As was Forgotten Realms. How gritty was AD&D by default?

As an OSR-player my view is that DL and UA ain't a part of the old school DnD.
DL came 1984, UA 1985, FR 1987, and that was the begining of the more heroic and less gritty DnD.

 

[Cadriel]

There was a marked difference between the assumptions that went into D&D's design, and how groups received and played it. It was designed as an exploration-focused game where both combat and parlay were powerful ways to get treasure. As war gamers, Gygax and company figured that players would pick their battles, get advantages, do the intelligence work and fight when they could gain an advantage, and do so for some material reward. Random combats were intended as a punishment for taking too long. Rob Kuntz was regarded as Gary's best player, and he was able to do solo runs into Castle Greyhawk with minimal fighting.

Over time this got morphed into a kick down the door play style. Which is pretty disastrous given the OD&D rules, or B/X rules, but the tournament dungeons helped foster. It wasn't the intent of OD&D, which gave XP for treasure, but it was a common way for teenagers to play. That doesn't mean that the three pillars weren't present and well supported from the start.

 

[Iosue]

When we played ADnD in the eighties we rolled characters with 4d6, drop lowest, in order.

Luxury! /yorkshireman